tv CNN Newsroom CNN July 12, 2013 11:00am-1:01pm PDT
randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> the jury expected to arrive momentarily after their recess. they'll get instructions from the judge and start the deliberations. in the meantime i'll hand it over to my colleague and friend brianna keilar who takes it from here. have a good weekend. >> you too, suzanne. was it murder or self-defense? that is what a jury of six women will decide very soon after a judge gives them instructions on the charges against george zimmerman. i am brianna keilar, as you heard suzanne say. any moment you will hear those instructions so i want to bring in our expert legal panel now. sunny hostin, cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. she was in the courtroom today in sanford, florida. faith jenkins, a prosecutor. trent copeland, a criminal defense attorney. of course, don lemon also joining us from florida. you know, sunny, i want to ask you first. because you were there in the courtroom. and tell us a little bit about
what we're expecting to hear from judge nelson. and if there might be any surprises. or is this pretty -- sort of what we're going to expect. the different instructions that we heard both sides arguing, sometimes very vociferously about yesterday. >> yeah. i mean, the instructions have been agreed upon by both sides. the judge has made her final determination. we even have a copy of those final jury instructions because they've been finalized. in a sense, we're not going to hear any surprises. but this is all going to be a surprise to the jury. because, of course, they are laypeople. they have not heard what they are going to be instructed to do. and this is a very important part of the process. because while we've been watching and hearing the attorneys argue about the facts of this case and arguing with they believe the evidence will show, now the judge is going to instruct them on the law. that's why we're all here, right? we want the jury to follow the law and apply it to the facts. she's now going to become basically their law professor.
she's going to explain to them what they are tasked to do. they are tasked to determine whether or not george zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder or whether or not that crime was justified or excusable. and then if they don't find him guilty of second-degree murder, they're also going to be charged and instructed by this judge, who i think, by the way, has just done a terrific job of building a rapport with this jury, she's going to instruct them that they can also consider manslaughter. and that self-defense is also a defense to manslaughter. we're going to actually hear the law today. i think it's going to be very interesting for these jurors. because then they're going to take the facts as they know them in their heads and then apply those jury instructions to the facts. >> don lemon, go ahead. set the scene for us. we can't see this happening. but the jury is walking in. the tipoff there, we see george zimmerman standing. what happens now? not what happens now, but sort of tell us what's going on.
just sort of the mood. this is such a pivotal point in this trial. >> this is it. it's very emotional here. to look at the juxtaposition of the prosecution and the defense this morning in the closing arguments, and then the rebuttal, quite frankly during john guy's rebuttal, you could -- it was quiet as a church mouse. you could hear a pin drop. it was very emotional. he's playing on the jury's emotion. quite frankly, this is going to be -- besides the judge's instructions, his words will be the last words that the jury will hear before they start their deliberations. and that is one advantage that the prosecution has because they get the first and they get the last word when it comes to deliberations -- when it comes to closing arguments. so they sort of get -- they get to put a period on it. but it was very emotional. now, of course, this morning you heard mark o'mara saying,
listen, you cannot come to -- do not use your common sense. do not connect the dots. what you have to do is weigh all the evidence. the evidence only. then john guy comes back and says, listen, use your common sense. brianna, something i'm sure you can -- you'll want to weigh on here as well. some of the things were very powerful. he said it was every child's fear that what trayvon martin experienced. to be followed. then when he said trayvon martin is is not a cardboard cut-out. talking about the defense using a cut-out to show the difference in size between trayvon martin and george zimmerman. now, some people may find that corny. but to a juror, to a parent, to someone who has a child and it's all women on this jury, most of them mothers, that is probably going to be very effective. this is a human. not a cardboard that we're talking about here. >> he was definitely -- >> very emotional moments here. >> definitely trying to appeal to the empathy there. we're going to go to the
courtroom and listen in to what judge nelson is telling the jury. >> no hands are being raised. did any of you use any type of an electronic device to get on the internet to do any independent research about the case? people, places, things or terminology? >> no, your honor. >> no hands are being raised. finally, did any of you read or create any e ma-maile-mails, te messages, blogs about the case? >> no, your honor. >> thank you very much. at this time, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, i thank you for your attention during this trial. please pay attention to the instructions that i am about to give you. the packet from which i'm reading will go back into the jury room with you so you don't need to take notes. george zimmerman, the defendant in this case, has been accused of the crime of second-degree murder. in this case, george zimmerman is accused of second-degree murder. a killing that is excusable or
was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful. if you find trayvon martin was killed by george zimmerman, you will then need to consider the circumstances surrounding the killing and decide if the killing was murder in the second degree or was manslaughter or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force. the killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon george zimmerman or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which george zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing. the killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune, in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual, ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent or, two, when
the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat. if a dangerous weapon is not used, and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. dangerous weapon is any weapon that taking into account the manner in which it is used is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. i now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before george zimmerman may be found guilty of second-degree murder or any lesser crime. to prove the crime of second-degree murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, trayvon martin is dead. two, the death was caused by the criminal act of george zimmerman. three, there was an unlawful killing of trayvon martin by an act imminently dangerous to
another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. an act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. an act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or a series of acts that a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another and is done from ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life. in order to convict of second-degree murder, it is not necessary for the state to prove george zimmerman had an intent to cause death. if you find that george zimmerman committed second-degree murder and you will also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime he discharged a firearm, and in
doing so caused great bodily harm to or the death of trayvon martin, you should find george zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder with discharge of a firearm causing great bodily harm or death. if you find that george zimmerman committed second degree murder and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime he discharged a firearm, you should find george zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder with discharge of a firearm. if you find that george zimmerman committed second-degree murder and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime he actually possessed a firearm, you should find george zimmerman guilty of second degree murder with actual possession of a firearm. a firearm is legally defined as any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.
to actually possess a firearm means that george zimmerman carried a firearm on his person or had a firearm within immediate physical reach with ready access with the intent to use the firearm during the commission of the crime. in considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that george crime of which he is accused, there may be evidence that he committed other acts that would constitute lesser included crime. therefore if you decide tt the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if george zimmerman is guilty of any lesser included crime. the lesser crime indicated in the definition of second-degree murder is manslaughter. the killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon george zimmerman or
to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which george zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing. the killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune, in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual, ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or, two, when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or, three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune, resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used, and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. dangerous weapon is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. to prove the crime of manslaughter the state must
prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, trayvon martin is dead. two, george zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of trayvon martin. george zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter or committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide. each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. if there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. the killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon george zimmerman or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which george zimmerman was at the time of the killing. the killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is
committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual, ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent. or, two, when the killing occurring by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation. or, three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune, resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used, and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner. in order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the state to prove that george zimmerman had an intent to cause death. only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. if you find george zimmerman committed manslaughter and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the manslaughter, george zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or
attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which i will discuss with you later in these instructions. the definition of firearm has previously been provided in these instructions. an issue in this case is whether george zimmerman acted in self-defense. it is a defense to the crime of second degree murder and the lesser included offense of manslaughter if the death of trayvon martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. deadly force means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. in deciding whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. the danger facing george
zimmerman need not have been actual. however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. based upon appearances, george zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. if george zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity, and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force. including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. in considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capabilities of george zimmerman and trayvon
martin. in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. if, however, from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. george zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. this means you must presume or believe george zimmerman is innocent. the presumption stays with george zimmerman as to each material allegation in the information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. to overcome george zimmerman's presumption of innocence the state has the burden of proving the crime with which george zimmerman has charged was
committed and george zimmerman is the person who committed the crime. george zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything. whenever the words reasonable doubt are used, you must consider the following. a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. such a doubt should not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. on the other hand, if after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all of the evidence there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable, but one which wavers and vase lacillates, then the ce is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and you must find george zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. it is to the evidence introduced in this trial and it alone that you are to look to that proof. a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of george zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
if you have a reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. if you have no reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman guilty. the state must prove that the crime was committed on february 26th, 2012. it must be proved only to a reasonable certainty that the alleged crime was committed in seminole county. it is up to you to decide which evidence is reliable. you should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. you may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence. you should consider how the witnesses acted as well as what they said. some things you should consider are, did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? did the witness seem to have an accurate memory? was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions? did the witness have some
interest in how the case should be decided? does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court? it is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. the witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony. you may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. a jury may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness. expert witnesses are like other witnesses with one exception. the law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion. however, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe him or her to be an expert. like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.
the constitution requires the state to prove its accusations against george zimmerman. it is not necessary for george zimmerman to disprove anything. nor is george zimmerman required to prove his innocence. it is up to the state to prove george zimmerman's guilt by evidence. george zimmerman exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. you must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by his decision. no juror should ever be concerned that george zimmerman did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case. a statement claimed to have been made by george zimmerman outside of court has been placed before you. such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make sure -- to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. therefore, you must determine from the evidence that george zimmerman's alleged statement was knowingly, voluntarily and
freely made. in making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to whether when george zimmerman made the statement he had been threatened in order to get him to make it, and whether anyone had promised him anything in order to get him to make it. if you conclude george zimmerman's out of court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it. these are some general rules that apply to your discussion. you must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict. excuse me. you must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. if you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. there is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. all of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter. this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have
heard, from the testimony of the witnesses, and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence, and these instructions. this case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or angry at anyone. remember the lawyers are not on trial. your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case. your duty is to determine if george zimmerman has been proven guilt or not in accord with the law. it is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if george zimmerman is found guilty. whatever verdict you render must be unanimous. that is each juror must agree to the same verdict. your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudiced, bias or sympathy. your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions. during this trial, i have permitted you to take notes. you'll be allowed to take those notes into the jury room during deliberations. you are instructed that your
notes are a tool to aid in your individual memory. you should not compare your notes with those of other jurors in determining the content of any testimony or in evaluating the importance of any evidence. notes are for the note taker's personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence. they are not evidence. above all, your memory should be your greatest asset in your recollection of the evidence. deciding a verdict is exclusi exclusively your job. i cannot participate in that decision in any way. please disregard anything i may have said or done that made you think i preferred one verdict over another. you may find george zimmerman guilty as charged in the information or guilty of such lesser included crime as the evidence may justify or not guilty. if you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. if you find that no offense has
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then, of course, your verdict must be not guilty. only one verdict may be returned as to the crime charged. this verdict must be unanimous. that is, all of you must agree to the same verdict. the verdict must be in writing. and for your convenience, the necessary form of verdict has been prepared for you. it is as follows. it reads at the top in the circuit court of the 18th judicial circuit in and for seminole county, florida, case number 2012-cf-1083a, state of florida versus george zimmerman. verdict, under the word verdict, there are three lines. next to the first line, it reads, we the jury find george zimmerman guilty of murder in the second degree as charged in the information. next to the second line it reads, we the jury find george zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, a lesser included offense. next to the third line it reads, we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty. you're to place an "x" on the
line that reflects your ver tick dikt. under that it says special findings. if you find george zimmerman guilty of murder in the second degree, you must choose one of the following. there are four lines. next to the first line, it reads, we find that george zimmerman discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily harm to another during the commission of this offense. next to the second line it reads, we find that george zimmerman discharged a firearm without causing death or great bodily harm to another during the commission of the offense. next to the third line it reads, we find that george zimmerman actually possessed, but did not discharge, a firearm during the commission of the offense. next to the fourth line it reads, we find that george zimmerman did not actually possess or discharge a firearm during the commission of the offense. if you find george zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, you must choose one of the following. there are two lines. next to the first line, it
reads, we find that george zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use or attempted to use a firearm during the commission of the offense. next to the second line it reads, we find that george zimmerman did not carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use a firearm during the commission of the offense. you're to put an "x" by the appropriate line if you so find. so say we all, a line for the foreperson to sign, and to date. in just a few moments you'll be taken to the jury room by the court deputy. the first thing that you should do is choose a foreperson who will preside over your deliberations. the foreperson should see to it that your discussions are carried on in an organized way and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard. it is also the foreperson's job to sign and date the verdict form when all of you have agreed on a verdict and to bring the verdict form back to the
courtroom when you return. during deliberations, jurors must communicate about the case only with one another and only when all jurors are present in the jury room. you are not to communicate with any person outside the jury about this case. until you have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in person or through the telephone, writing, or electronic communication such as a blog, twitter, e-mail, text message or any other means. do not contact anyone to assist you during deliberations. these communication rules apply until i discharge you at the end of the case. if you become aware of any violation of these instructions, or any other instruction i have given in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the court deputy. if you need to communicate with me, send a note through the court deputy, signed by the foreperson. if you have questions, i will talk with the attorneys before i answer so it may take some time. you may continue your
deliberations while you wait for my answer. i will answer any questions if i can in writing or orally here in open court. your verdict finding george zimmerman either guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. the verdict must be the verdict of each jury as well or as well jury as a whole. during the trial items were received into evidence as exhibits. you may examine whatever exhibits you think will help you in your deliberations. these exhibits will be sent into the jury room with you when you begin to deliberate. in closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. there are no other laws that apply to this case. even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. for two centuries we have lived by the constitution and the law. no juror has the right to violate rules we all share. at this time, if all of you will please take your notes with you and follow deputy jarvis back
into the jury room. >> judge, may we approach? >> yes, you may. >> the fate of george zimmerman now rests in the hands of the jury. six women, five of them white, one of them hispanic. they are now going back to begin deliberations. will they find george zimmerman guilty or second-degree murder, manslaughter? will they find him not guilty in his killing of trayvon martin? we will be breaking everything down that happened today right after a quick break. we want to talk about how effective the closing arguments were. did the prosecution do a better job than the defense? did the defense do a better job?
we also want to see which part of those jury instructions that you just heard judge nelson explain to the jury, which of those instructions could trip up jurors and how long might they be deliberating? we're back right after a moment. this day calls you. to fight chronic osteoarthritis pain. to fight chronic low back pain. to take action. to take the next step. today, you will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens,
you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. anti-depressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not for children under 18. people taking maois, linezolid or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk. severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing skin or eyes. tell your doctor about all your medicines, including those for migraine and while on cymbalta, call right away if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles or serious allergic skin reactions like blisters, peeling rash, hives, or mouth sores to address possible life-threatening conditions. talk about your alcohol use, liver disease and before you reduce or stop cymbalta. dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. take the next step. talk to your doctor. cymbalta can help.
...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. the jury is now deliberating in the george zimmerman murder trial. let's bring in our legal expert panel, sunny hostin, cnn legal analyst. faith jenkins, a prosecutor. trent popeland, criminal defense attorney. richard gabriel, a jury consultant. before i get to you guys, i just want to go over who these jurors are. a little different than other
juries you may know about. there are only six jurors on this panel. there are five white women. there is one hispanic or black woman. i misspoke earlier. i said it was one hispanic woman. it is a hispanic or a black woman. the range in age here is considerable, from 30s to 60s. and most of the women in this jury are married. so, richard gabriel, jury consultant, first to you. this is a process that could take hours, could take days. what's happening right now in this first half hour? >> well, the first thing that the jurors usually do is sit down and go, who's going to be the foreperson? usually this can be established even during the trial because a couple of components happen with forepeople. one is sometimes the most gregarious person becomes the foreperson. sometimes the person in the highest authority position. you knyou have a safety officer. you have a woman who was a
director of a call center who directed 1,200 employees. these are obviously viable candidates for the foreperson. usually the first thing is who's going to sort of direct this? and then the decision is usually made, okay, how do we go through the evidence? because there's two typical scenarios. one jury is let's go to the verdict questions and let's vote. or it's shall we go through the evidence and pore over the evidence. if they go to the vote quickly, then usually you have a quicker verdict. if they spend a lot of time going through the evidence, obviously it can take a lot more time. >> now i want to bring in trent copeland. let me ask you this. because we watched closing arguments today coming from the defense and then we saw the sort of secondary closing arguments from the prosecution. when you listened to those jury instructions that we heard today, when it comes to second degree murder and it comes to manslaughter, sort of looking back over this entire case, where do you think if there is
any the deficit in this case that the prosecution has built that would make it difficult for this jury to find george zimmerman guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter? >> you know, look. brianna, first of all, i think the difficulty in the case began with how the case was filed. first of all, i think this case was filed way overcharged. i think the case never should have been filed as a second degree murder case. i think the case probably should have been filed as a manslaughter case if it was filed at all. i think right there at the root is where the problem began for the prosecution. i think, though, under florida law, what we'll have to assess as this jury goes into that jury room is when does the case really start? the case really starts factually when the confrontation starts. that's where tissues for the prosecution really are the most manifest. what they can't establish is when did the confrontation start? how did it start? who started the confrontation? at that point really the prosecution's case begins to break down. because we just don't know. we just don't have the answers
to it. so no matter what you think about george zimmerman, i've got strong feelings about george zimmerman and what he did and how he should have behaved that evening. i think a lot of what he did put all of this in motion. strictly as a legal matter, strictly as a legal matter, the case begins when the confrontation starts. who started it, who ended the confrontation, and who responded aggressively in that confrontation. we simply don't have facts to support that. the prosecution's case really falls, i think, in that area tremendously. i think that's where this jury is going to hang their hat and probably find reasonable doubt in this case and not convict him on either charge. >> that's right, trent. who was the aggressor and is there reasonable doubt or reasonable certainty as we heard judge nelson explain to the jury there. right after a break, we're going to be talking about that very powerful rebuttal closing argument that we heard from deputy prosecutor john guy. "i'm part of an american success story,"
"that starts with one of the world's most advanced distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"
the jury is deliberating in the george zimmerman murder trial. we're back with our legal panel. we want to discuss what we saw before the judge began with jury instructions and the jury went back to start deciding george zimmerman's fate. today we saw closing arguments by the defense. then we saw a rebuttal closing argument by deputy prosecutor john guy. very dramatic, i thought, closing argument that he gave. let's listen to part of it. >> this case is not about race. it's about right and wrong. it's that simple. let me suggest to you how you know that for sure.
ask yourselves, all things being equal, if the roles were reversed, and it was 28-year-old george zimmerman walking home in the rain with a hoodie on to protect himself from the rain, walking through that neighborhood, and a 17-year-old driving around in a car who called the police, who had hate in their heart, hate in their mouth, hate in their actions, and if it was trayvon martin who had shot and killed george zimmerman, what would your verdict be? that's how you know it's not about race. >> imagine, he was saying, if their roles were reversed here.
sunny hostin, you were in the courtroom during this time. did you get a sense of how the jury was reacting to what guy was saying to them? >> you know, he had them at hello. he had already established a rapport with them because he gave a very forceful opening statement. his cross-examinations were very colorful. remember, he was the one that was straddling the mannequin on the floor in front of the jury with many of the jurors standing up to see him. so he already has this rapport with the jury. when he got back up, i've got to tell you, a few times they looked at some of the exhibits he was referencing. but every other time, their eyes re fixed on him. they did not look away. i hadn't seen that kind of reaction with any of the other attorneys during any of the other statements or arguments. so i think that they really, really honed in on what he had to say. it was very, very impressive. yes, he did argue from an emotional standpoint in some
ways. but he also, also argued the evidence as well. and so i think this jury certainly seemed to connect with him. in particular, we know that there are five mothers on this jury out of the six women that are on the jury. when he described a child's worst nightmare being followed in the dark in the rain by a stranger, i'm a mother of a boy. it resonated with me. i cannot imagine that it didn't resonate with the mothers on the jury. >> and so he -- he said that. use your hearts. that's what he -- certainly we didn't hear that coming from the defense when we heard their closing argument. let me bring in faith jenkins. you're a prosecutor. you've served in this capacity. he said there, something that struck me. because he said this isn't about race. and yet what -- to me, that sort of belies that the prosecution is concerned that perhaps it is about race and that jurors may
not necessarily identify with trayvon martin. or, as we heard from bernie de la rionda, they may not identify with what you could argue is their star witness, rachel jeantel. do you think that's a concern? is that the right way to read that? >> i think they're being very careful here with their phrasing to not make it that issue in front of this jury. and just look at the facts and the evidence and what they've presented and base the case on that. john guy's prosecution, we're taught as prosecutors in order for a jury to believe in your message, they have to believe in the messenger. and he stood there with such conviction, you could tell he really believed what he was telling these jurors today. and when he talked about that one particular issue, they've used the word "profiling" a number of times in this trial. without using racial profiling. but the words profiling. these jurors know what that means. they know that when they say zimmerman profiled trayvon martin, he didn't profile him
because he didn't like the kind of candy he was carrying. but it was because of how he looked and how he was dressed. but at the end they came back and they told this jury, look at the evidence. look at the facts. doesn't matter if it was george zimmerman, if it was trayvon martin. right is right and do the right thing. >> don lemon, i know you have some thoughts. how effective do you think this closing argument was? >> well -- well, listen. i'm just going to be honest here. as someone who i haven't watched this from gavel to gavel as you say. i'm a layperson here. i'm watching all the legalese and hearing all of you talk about this. to pretend that emotion is not part of a trial or jury is, i think, just completely disingenuous. people go into a jury room and they decide based, yes, upon facts. but human beings are not devoid of emotion. and so they also base their decisions on emotion as well.
there is a reason that there are six women who have children, six mothers on this jury. there is a reason that the parents on both sides have testified here about whose voice they're hearing, about what kind of child they have. there is a reason for all of that. and that is emotion is a big part of that reason. there is a reason that the prosecution at the very end relied upon emotion to give the jury in the end. to pretend that emotion doesn't play into this i think, again, is disingenuous. i'm not a legal expert. but i know when those people go into that room there's going to be emotion in their heart. they're going to weigh their decision on the facts, of course. but they're going to weigh their motion on being a human being. part of that is being emotional. >> the defense certainly knows in that capacity they are at a deficit. one of the ways we saw mark o'mara, the lead defense attorney, trying to combat that is by using a block of cement in his closing argument. he was saying that is a deadly weapon. basically saying that trayvon
martin had a deadly weapon in addition to george zimmerman. we'll see how effective our panel thinks that was right after a quick break. i have low testosterone. there, i said it. see, i knew testosterone could affect sex drive, but not energy or even my mood. that's when i talked with my doctor. he gave me some blood tests... showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% testosterone gel. the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer,
and women who are or may become pregnant or are breast-feeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%.
now, we've obviously long heard, we're going to put this to our panel, that george zimmerman had a gun and he was up against an unarmed 17-year-old. the defense very sensitive to this, trying to make the jury think about this in a different way. listen to what mark o'mara said this morning tu ining during hi argument. >> now, i'll be held in contempt if i drop this. so i'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around. but that's cement. that is a sidewalk. and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home.
that was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fist to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. not necessarily for self-defense. but great bodily injury against george zimmerman. and the suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody, that that can't cause great bodily injury, is disgusting. >> the defense clearly sensitive here to what we have heard from the prosecution. that george zimmerman was armed with a gun. and trayvon martin was armed only with iced tea and skittles. tanya miller, former prosecutor, current defense attorney, do you think this was effective? or was this too much? >> i thought it actually fell a little flat. the problem with this nonstra demonstration was, one, the state never said the cement
couldn't hurt you. what they said was george zimmerman is exaggerating the extent of his injuries and that trayvon martin didn't use the concrete and the cement in the way that george zimmerman says he did. i think the state effectively pointed out in their rebuttal all of these lies and inconsistencies in his statements, including the injuries. and the defense did not effectively deal with that in their closing argument. i think this was a feeble attempt to do it. it just sort of fell flat. of all the things you can show sort of righteous indignation about and be disgusted about, that just didn't seem to be one of them. >> what do you think, trent? do you agree with that? you heard from the state, they pointed out zimmerman said he was hit dozens of times. 25 times. but they say the injuries on the back of his head were not consistent with that. >> you know, look. i couldn't disagree more, frankly. with regard to what tanya said, you know, with regard to all these inconsistencies we keep hearing people discuss i'm not sure what they are. to the extent they exist they're really minor.
in fact, even the chief lead detective in the case said that the inconsistencies from george zimmerm zimmerman's statements have all been minor. when we talk about these injuries, look, let's call it what it is. i don't know that i'd want to have the kind of bruises on the back of my head and the gash that george zimmerman had on the back of his head, i wouldn't want to have that -- have someone call that insignificant. remember this. if a woman, for example, walks into a police station and she presents with those injuries on the back of her head to a police officer, she will by definition, that will be considered great bodily injury. and the police will go out, they'll arrest whoever tid this, if it's her husband, it's domestic violence. that's the standard. we can't take the standard in this case and look at it and say that george zimmerman's injuries weren't severe. they weren't significant. and then in another kind of case, i do this every day, those kinds of injuries and less, and sunny will attest to this, those kind of injuries and less will present in any court of law, in any police station, in every county in this country, as great
bodily injury. so the reality is, you may not consider those kinds of injuries to be enough for george zimmerman to have reacted with a gun, to have shot trayvon martin. but strictly as a legal matter, he had the right to do that under florida law because he presumed that he was going to face even greater injury, even more significant injury. remember, the law doesn't require that there be any yinjuy at all. whether you like george zimmerman or not, i certainly understand folks who won't, the fact of the matter is this is a significant injury and it presents as such. >> as we heard the jury will consider, did zimmerman respond reasonably? that is very much at the heart of this. the jury continuing to deliberate in the george zimmerman trial. we'll be right back in just a moment to answer the question of how long it might take them to come to a verdict. m ] with my l, every food is finger food. so i can't afford to have germy surfaces. but after one day's use, dishcloths can redeposit millions of germs. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to a fresh sheet of new bounty duratowel. look! a fresh sheet of bounty duratowel
leaves this surface cleaner than a germy dishcloth, as this black light reveals. it's durable, cloth-like and it's 3 times cleaner. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to new bounty duratowel. the durable, cloth-like picker-upper. these chevys are moving fast. i'll take that malibu. yeah excuse me, the equinox in atlantis blue is mine! i was here first, it's mine. i called about that one, it's mine. mine! mine. it's mine. it's mine. mine. mine. mine. mine. it's mine! no it's not, it's mine! better get going, it's chevy model year-end event. [ male announcer ] the chevy model year-end event. the 13s are going fast, time to get yours. current chevy truck owners can trade up to this chevy silverado all-star edition with a total value of $9,000.
let's get straight now to the seminole county sheriff and sanford police chief holding a press conference. >> not disrupt operations. we encourage all residents that -- to live their lives normally. we will not tolerate anyone who uses this verdict as an excuse to violate the law. i am proud of the efforts of the men and women of our organization.
and we're going to continue to work hard to provide the best possible service to the people of seminole county. and now i would like to introduce chief smith. >> first of all, i want to thank you all for being here today and taking the time to be here. 17 months ago a tragedy took place here in the city of sanford. one which has changed the mind set, the perception, what we see in our country today. it also took the opportunity to bring some things to light that may have taken place many, many, many years ago. 15 months ago, 30,000-some-odd people showed up here. during that same time, they requested that several things take place. they wanted an investigation. they asked for an arrest. they asked for charges to be made. they asked for a trial. each of those things have taken
place. additionally, they asked for an investigation into the police department, and they asked for a review of the things that have taken place in the police department through the department of justice. each of those things have taken place. but also during that time, a blue ribbon panel was developed to look at issues and concerns not only in the police department, but throughout the city. community meetings have been held to talk about issues and concerns that affect the people in sanford. and how we as a community can work together to resolve those. there's been training done with law enforcement. through the department of justice, within the police department, to talk about issues based on biased based policing and ethics. we've gone out into the community and talked, spoke to people about what their issues, by knocking on their doors, introducing ourselves, to say,
let's see how we can improve the relationship between the police department and the community. we've also developed what's called sanford's pastors connecting. where we've connected with the pastors throughout the entire city. and those pastors, regardless of their religion, their beliefs, set those aside so that they get a good feel for the things that are happening. communicating with each other, talking about the things that are going on within the community. because in this case, they are the ones who have the opportunity to unite, to have that vision, to see the direction that the police department working through the pastors, how our community can move forward. and as we await this verdict, we want to remind everyone that the city of sanford has been a peaceful location since that time 17 months ago. and it remains a peaceful
location. an example of that is when you come into this -- the building here today, the number of people who are in the area for free speech, we've learned some lessons through this past 15 months. many of which we're going to move forward with in seeing how we can band together to make sanford a much better place. but part of that is communications. and being able to talk to each other about the issues and how we can improve upon the things that need to be todone in our community. more needs to be done. i'm not going to sit here and tell you that everything is peachy keen in the city of sanford. i'm not going to do that. but what i will tell you is this. our community is working together to be a better community. to be an example for the other people throughout -- throughout florida, throughout the nation. to be the example to talk about
issues, to put things on the table, to see the direction that we can do better. we can do more. and as a community, it becomes our responsibility to work together to talk about what the issues and things that are out there. it's our community. and when this trial passes, it will still be our community. when everyone is gone and the cameras are gone and the light is no longer shining on sanford, it will still remain our community. an example of how community can come together in a crisis to work together to resolve issues, to be peaceful, to put their things on the table, to talk about what is out there and how we can move together. as the sheriff has indicated, we have worked together diligently for the past months to put together a plan to ensure the
safety of sanford and our surrounding communities. ladies and gentlemen, it's a trying time for all of us. we're not sure what the verdict is going to bring out. but at the same time, it's a great opportunity for evolution within the sanford community. and showing how we as a community can involve or evolve to do better and be better. to ensure that we have an opportunity to speak our piece peacefully. to come together peacefully. and when you leave here, you leave here peacefully. there is nothing on the horizon for us other than to move forward. the family has also asked the judicial system to run its course, and that's exactly what we're asking other people to do. allow the judicial system to run its course. and we will move forward from
here. thank you and have a great afternoon. >> thank you very much. >> so you can see they're concerned locally from the seminole county sheriff and also from the sanford, florida, police chief that there could be some unrest following the verdict. i think it's safe to say certainly concern if george zimmerman is acquitted that there could be folks in that community who are very upset about this. many people who really fought to try to make sure that this trial happened. as initially it didn't appear to be going in that direction. now, on a national level, we've also heard some warnings from, for instance, civil rights activists and minister jesse jackson. he said, we seek justice, not revenge, from the american judicial system. if zimmerman is convicted there should not be inappropriate celebrations, because a young man lost his life. and if he is not convicted we should avoid violence because it will only lead to more tragedies.
self-destruction is not the road to reconstruction. let's bring in don lemon on this. there is a tremendous amount of concern, and you're seeing a lot of folks who are trying to say no matter what the outcome, people should, you know, cool heads should prevail and part of this has been the process. allowing this to play out. and certainly people shouldn't be getting upset or being violent in the wake of whatever the outcome may be. >> well, let me just say this. no one should ever be violent about anything. and especially in this particular case. and i want to say this as judiciously as possible. i'm not yjust saying this becaue i'm african-american. to hear people come out beforehand and talk about the possibility of violence and not rioting, it strikes me as those barbarians can't contain themselves. it strikes me people as that as well. i don't -- i don't remember any talk about this surrounding the jodi arias verdict. or the casey anthony verdict.
now, the police department was involved in this particular thing and there is race involved. to say beforehand, many people think that that is sort of inciting violence by telling people not to be riotous and not to come out. i think it's incumbent upon police departments to protect and serve all the time, including in these particular situations. the family has said according to our reporters, according to the people who've been in the courtroom and who have spoken to her, that whatever the verdict is, they will accept that. and it's incumbent upon the public to accept the same verdict. but to say, we're going to expect riots and mark nejame who's sitting here next to me, same conversation. it appears to be a bit odd. it seems like the sanford police department is now coming out and having a conversation with the public that they should have had with themselves a long time ago before this particular incident. >> they have. >> yeah. >> i think, don, you couldn't be more right. i think it's just so inappropriate and wrong to think that because there's going to be a verdict, let's say the verdict is simply not guilty. that people are going to riot
over that. let's be specific about it. we've talked about this. that african-americans are going to riot over this. that's just wrong. >> what if, you know, if he is acquitted. do you think that white americans or hispanic americans are going to riot? >> nobody's talking about white americans rioting. the reality of it is, will some people who are irrational and ill tempered, might a person or two react? i just saw darrell parks who's become a friend through this. natalie jackson is a friend. mark o'mara is a friend. we have to all understand that justice is a process. it's not the outcome. we've all seen a very open trial. >> yeah. >> we've seen skilled lawyers on both sides. we've seen people give their best and now we're awaiting a jury verdict. so to suggest that, you know, it's going to be riotous i think is just so offensive and wrong. and let's just hope and listen, you know, what kind of memory would it be to trayvon martin for all those advocates for him. what kind of memory is it that other people get hurt, other
people get killed in the event there's an acquittal. on the other side, if, in fact, he's convicted, then people have to simply understand that. and recognize that that's what the jury ruled. >> that's the judicial process. that's what people have said all along, including his family. including most people who have been advocates. if you want to say for the side, for trayvon martin's side, is that what they wanted was for the judicial process to play out. they did not say they wanted george zimmerman to be convicted. they just wanted him to face a judge and a jury and whatever happened after that, that was the end of the process. >> that's right. that's exactly what's happened. so for those who thought that he shouldn't -- george zimmerman should have never been arrested, and those who thought that, in fact, he should have been arrested on the spot, this is how it's played out. we've had this transparency, this trial, in front of the media. in front of the world. you couldn't have both sides better represented. >> yeah. >> so now we simply have to wait. and whatever happens, we have to accept it. we don't have to agree. but we have to accept. that's what separates us from so much of the world.
because we deal with things civilly. we deal with things. we accept the judicial process. and we don't simply revolt over it. >> we figure out how we can be better and we move on. >> exactly right, don. >> that was obviously something that we heard from, i think, the attorney for trayvon martin's family. that for them, justice was about seeing this process through. and they just wanted a chance for george zimmerman to obviously face a jury and go through this process of a trial. don and mark, thank you very much for that. coming up after a quick break, we have something that you'll only see here on cnn. an exclusive interview with mark o'mara. that is george zimmerman's lead defense attorney. right after a quick break.
due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?
the jury now has the case in the george zimmerman murder trial. his fate rests in their hands as they begin deliberations. who are these people on the jury? obviously we haven't seen them on camera as is customary. but we do know a little bit about them. five white women. one woman who is hispanic or black. the age range from 30s to 60s. and most of the women are married. so what are they talking about right now? what might trip them up as they begin deliberations? we will get the perspective of a jury consultant coming up in just a moment. but now to a trial perspective that you will see first here on cnn. te fence attorn defense attorney mark o'mara just gave the most watched and likely most scrutinized closing argument of his career. martin savidge, you spoke to george zimmerman's attorney for nearly an hour? >> right, yeah. this was a very candid
conversation. mark a mao'mara has been no strr when it comes to the media. what makes this interview so unique, we conducted it with the idea that it was going to come out after the jury had gone into deliberations. in other words, after the defense and the prosecution had both rested. this allowed mark o'mara to be the most candid i have ever heard him. there was nothing he would not talk about. and we talked about everything, whether it be race, whether it be about politics, whether it be about improprieties he saw from the side of the prosecution and about some of the witnesses as well as some of the personalities including judge nelson. so here is mark o'mara and our conversation. why did you take this case? >> it's what i do. people asked me that so many times. i can't come up with a better or different reason than this is what i do. when this case first became open to me i looked at it and it just seemed to fit my skill set more than i could ever have planned or imagined. >> what were the circumstances
when you first met george? >> strangely enough, when i walked into the jail cell where george was waiting, i had a couple pictures in my mind. i had a picture of trayvon martin being a very young boy, maybe 13 or 14 years old. i had a picture of george zimmerman being about 250 pounds with an attitude. because that's the picture that i saw, 2005 picture when he was very heavy. that's okay. those are the type of people that i represent, generally speaking. i walked into that jail cell, and one of the most amazing sights to me was this small, young, respectful, quiet, scared individual, half -- literally half the size that i thought he would be. not physically, but presentation. and it really took me back. i spent a couple hours with him. and he was very respectful. very open. very concerned about his situation.
from that day forward i knew i wanted to represent him and, two, where this case was going to go. >> reporter: was it a concern for you that he might have been a racist? >> when i saw the 12-year-old trayvon martin picture and the 270 pound george zimmerman picture, yes. no question. and strangely enough, i think that's why most of the people who believe yogeorge zimmerman a racist today, got their belief when they saw those two pictures 16 months ago. you can't not have that thought. >> reporter: whose fault is that, that imagery dichotomy. i think everyone knows what you're talking about. that at the beginning, the images were very different. you had the first pictures of george zimmerman. he was in what looked like jail attire. then you had a very, very young looking trayvon martin. whose fault is that? >> it was a wontfully created and crafted public relations campaign by the people who are assisting the martin family. ben crump and other people.
i don't -- i don't discredit what he did. as long as he acknowledges that's exactly what happened. >> reporter: do you think that george zimmerman would have even been charged had ben crump not been pulled into this? >> no. ben crump or someone like him. because ben crump not gotten involved in the case, maybe for some good reasons to begin with, if he believed that there was something here that was being swept under the rug, then get on into it. i'm very okay with that. >> reporter: but you didn't quite say it that way. you made it sound like it was ben crump, george zimmerman would be free at this time and we would not be in a trial. >> that's correct. i think it was a made-up story for purposes that had nothing to do with george zimmerman. and that they victimized him, they complained about trayvon martin being victimized. george zimmerman was victimized by a publicity campaign to smear him and call him a racist when he wasn't and call him a murderer when he wasn't. >> reporter: and so angela corey and the governor and all of those that had a hand in bringing about this prosecution,
they were all manipulated by ben crump? >> oh, i don't know that it was ben crump doing all that manipulation. but i'm very surprised that the prosecution team decided not to take this case to a grand jury. when one was sitting, impanelled and ready to take on the case for the state of florida versus george zimmerman and determine whether or not there was enough evidence and enough information to charge him with any crime. rather than do that, which was the default position that could have happened, they decided to have a press conference, pray with the victim's family, and announce second-degree murder charges. >> reporter: how much of this was politics? >> it's guesswork on my behalf. but if i enter into this formula an element or ingredient of politics, a lot more makes sense. a lot more about the way the case was handled early on. the way it was turned into a racial event when seemingly and
now positively, it wasn't. when a special prosecutor is brought in. when there doesn't seem to be any reason why, you know, the sitting prosecutor had perfect opportunity to handle this case. matter of fact, i've deposed three of his assistants who were busting their butts on this case. so they were ready to go forward. and we had a grand jury set. when a special prosecutor comes in, then waves the grand jury, then files charges that most good legal analysts, including allen dirsowitz say that's an abomination, you have to wonder if there's not some outside influence pressuring decisions. >> reporter: much has been made about race in this case. where do you see race in this case? >> i see race being injected into this case in the first week that it existed.
and i see it as never left this case. even though time and time and time again, race has been proven not to have been an element in george's consideration that night. >> reporter: this case to many is a cause. it's not just a case. these would be people who are very much in support of trayvon martin who believe that there was great wrong here. and in essence that this is a civil rights case, i mean that in the full sense of advancing civil rights, you are perceived as the man standing in the way of this civil rights case. >> right. >> reporter: how do you handle that? >> very simply. i will walk over to that side, put my arm around those people, and walk with them on a civil rights issue. i've represented young black males for 30 years. i know better than most people, better than most of the people
who are complaining how young black maeles are treated in the criminal justice system and we need to fix it. we need to address those problems. it's not swrjust in the system. it's in the schools, in the churches, in the families, in the home. we need to address it. get your cross-hairs off george zimmerman and i will join you. keep your cross-hairs on george zimmerman and don't tell me that i'm getting in the way, because you are. because you're the one who's sitting back telling me that this is a civil rights case when george had nothing to do with civil rights. this was an unfortunate event between two people. >> reporter: you took -- i think what some might consider risks during the trial. one of them being that you cross-examined a grieving mother. >> yes. >> reporter: any regrets on that? >> no. i -- i hope that people think or i think that i handled it properly and respectfully. i have handled, i think, 40 or so murder cases. and in every one of those murder cases, you're going to have some
interaction with a victim's family. >> you certainly would hope that your son, trayvon martin, did nothing that could have led to his own death, correct? >> reporter: and you did tracy martin as well. >> yes. >> reporter: that one didn't seem to go quite so well. >> so your words were, i can't tell. >> something to that effect. but i never said, no, that that wasn't my son's voice. >> well, i think the state should have put tracy martin on. that's their witness. i think it was strange that they decided not to call the father of the victim. but they did so because of the very reason that i had to call him. which was that tracy martin told two cops who testified, four who were present, that when he listened to that tape it was not his son. >> reporter: but that's not what he said on the stand. >> that is not. but it is what two cops said and two other cops who were available to say that he said, no, that's not my son's voice. now, it's got to be
extraordinarily difficult to be in tracy martin's shoes and sybrina fulton's shoes. they have to be able to go through life believing in their heart and in their soul that that is trayvon martin's voice. >> reporter: rachel jeantel. what did you think of her as a witness? >> here's how i think about rachel jeantel myself. i think that she was a reluctant witness who didn't want to be there. i think her mom and ms. fulton got together and said something like, you need to go tell this woman what happened to her son and do it now. i think that's what happened. >> reporter: how much was actual fact do you think from her testimony? >> i think what happened was once she was put in the position of having to talk, we know that what she did was -- was smooth over a lot of the rough spots of what trayvon was talking to her about. we know that she didn't talk about the -- the racist terms he maybe used, the colorful language that he may have used. i think what she did was just give a sanitized version to mom. because, after all, i think she
was being sensitive to ms. fulton having just lost her son. i think ms. jeantel came across as being not wanting to be there. i think she had a bit of an attitude because she was there. i don't think she took very kindly to the way mr. west was examining her. >> reporter: i think you're quite right, yeah. >> i think that showed. i give her her due in that she didn't want to be involved in our system. >> reporter: do you think that george zimmerman, your client, if he's acquitted, what kind of life will he have? >> not a good one. i think he has to live mostly in hiding. he's got to be able to protect himself from that periphery that still believe that he's some racist murderer or acted in a bad way. and that you don't know who they are. they don't know if they're down the street. or you don't know if they're across the country. i think that he's probably concerned about living still in central florida. and never having a normal life. >> reporter: is this the case you want to be remembered for? >> well, i'd like to wait until
an acquittal happens before i'm remembered for it. but yes. i'm okay with that. for this reason. i think that i've handled myself well. i think that i've looked at a case that's very difficult in a number of different facets. media, racial issues, the fact that it's a murder, vocal family, other attorneys involved, and i think that i handled it in a way that has maintained my respect for myself, which i guess is very important to me, but much more important than that, is that i've respected or maintained a respect for the system. and i've been able to sort of juggle all of those sensitivities without compromising my client's right to a fair trial or my zealous representation of him. i'm feeling pretty good about what i've done so far, to be honest. not to sound egoist. >> as that jury deliberates, are you nervous? are you anxious? do you have some ritual that calms you? what will be happening? >> i can't eat.
i can't work. i just have to wait. and it is the worst thing, i guess it's sort of like waiting for a child to be born or something. you're just waiting and you just don't know. you're anticipating it, fearing it at the same time, of course. but, no, you don't do anything but wait. i don't think there's anything else you can do. >> reporter: that waiting is under way. it began at 2:30 for mark o'mara. and certainly for george zimmerman. by the way, mark o'mara, no surprise here, says, yes, he will be writing a book. brianna? >> not surprising there. i'm sure many people, most of the folks involved in this case, are playing that terrible waiting game right now. martin savidge, great interview. thank you for that. coming up, our experts will debate that interview. plus, you'll hear from one of the people that mark o'mara blasted throughout this trial, benjamin crump. he is the attorney for trayvon martin's family. we have that coming up as we await the jury's decision in the george zimmerman trial. stay right here with us. ready?
before the break you heard from the george zimmerman defense lawyer, mark o'mara. we have reached out to the trayvon martin family for interviews. they are, though, waiting until after the verdict to give those. the attorneys for martin's parents spoke with cnn's piers morgan. here's some of that conversation. >> if the jury follows the evidence, george zimmerman will be held accountable of killing trayvon martin, because nothing has changed. george zimmerman followed, profiled, made a decision to get out his car and chase trayvon martin. the 911 tape, clearly that objective evidence says that the young lady he was talking to on the phone clearly says that. there is nothing to contradict that. so who threw what first punch? if they were struggling or rolling on the ground? george zimmerman started this
confrontation. so we can never get beyond trayvon martin just walking home, and a strange man chasing him. doesn't trayvon martin have the right to self-defense? we have to all acknowledge that if you had the dynamic turned around, and you had trayvon martin killed george zimmerman, the stand your ground argument wouldn't work for trayvon martin. that's the trouble with this whole thing. it's so subjective when you think about it. but i believe in my heart that based on your child being chased by a grown man with a 9 millimeter gun, and we hear that 911 tape, then a couple of minutes later he's shot in the heart and dead, i think those women on the jury have children and they have to think that this could be my child. this could be anybody's child. that's what's so troubling about this case and that's why it's so emotional, piers. people all over the country are saying, especially minority
parents, what if this was my child? that's a horrible feeling to imagine your child do nothing wrong but walking home minding his business, and somebody gets out their car and chases him. >> could you see a situation where george zimmerman is convicted of one of those lesser charges and would that be satisfactory if you couldn't get a murder charge against him? >> well, what's satisfactory is what the jury decides in this case. we don't have a choice in that. we don't get to vote. i think that there's been a case made for both murder two and for manslaughter because manslaughter is a lesser included offense of -- i'm sorry. yeah. manslaughter is a lesser incl e included offense of murder two. that's why the jury will be given that option. it comes down to whether or not his state of mind was reasonable to the average person. that would be -- so that's really the crux of it. that's what the jury will decide. were his aks reasonable? and the actions don't start in the middle of the struggle. they start from the beginning of him getting out of a car armed
with a 9 mill meet r following and running after someone who's running away from him. >> now, we asked the prosecutors in this case if they would be available to speak with us this week. they declined. and up next, our experts will weigh in on the emotion, the anger in today's closing arguments. plus, a jury consultant tells us what's happening right now inside that room with the jury. dad. how did you get here? i don't know. [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly as i planned.. really? now save up to 60% during summer hotel sale. use code "summer" on priceline's.
hln anchor who is also an attorney. ryan, so they don't actually know as they consider whether this is second-degree murder, manslaughter or he is not guilty, they don't know the sentences that accompany their decisions. >> that's right. they have no idea about the sentences. we like to keep it that way in the law because we don't want people to be influenced by that and say, well, i would love to give him this but i don't want to see him go to jail for that long. or i'm not going to give this because it just doesn't seem right. you want them to base it on the facts in the law. they have no idea what the sentences are. what's interesting about this is, second-degree murder carries 25 to life. mandatory 25 with a firearm. manslaughter carries around 10 to 30. they could have some overlap there. then the judge can always downward depart from those sentences if she sees a way to do that. we'll have to wait and see. but they have no idea what the penalties are. just the law and the evidence. >> so they've had to consider of this idea of if a gun was used. obviously, we know that a gun
was used. explain that. part of this has to do with mandatory minimum gun sentences there in florida. >> that's right. they're part of the gun laws here. the idea, a lot of this comes from a lot of the gun crime that has increased really all over the country. in florida what they try to do is address that by saying if you have certain crimes that are committed with guns, we want to add on certain penalties. in certain cases add on mandatory penalties. that kind of raises the ante. we're not just -- hopefully, i think the idea is deterrent a little bit. whether that works or not is debatable. that's what sets in some of these mandatory, for example, for second-degree with a firearm. also that higher sentence for manslaughter if a gun is used. >> that's right. it was a controversial, law, i believe, when it was inactnacte jeb bush. use a gun and you are done. ryan smith, hln anchor working this trial. thank you for that. of course, one of the things i think people are wondering now that the jury has the trial, how
long are they going to deliberate? is it going to be hours? is it going to be days? could it be going on more than a week? so let's bring in now richard gabriel. he is a jury consultant. and, you know, when you take a look at these high profile cases, you can certainly understand why it takes so -- so long. you know, it took jodi arias's jury, richard, about 15 hours to convict her in the first-degree murder of her ex-boyfriend, travis alexander. casey anthony's trial took jurors 10 hours, 40 minutes to acquit. conrad murder, nine hours to convict him in the involuntary manslaughter of michael jackson. scott peterson, jurors took a whopping seven days to convict him of two murders. jurors in the o.j. simpson murder trial took under four hours to acquit him in 1995. one thing of note, all of these juries had 12 members. there are just six in the george zimmerman trial. is this going to make a difference, richard? >> well, it can make a
difference. but it really depends on the individual personalities of the jurors. how much evidence they go through, how comprehensive they are. and also if there are divisions that emerge. the thing that i also want to make sure everybody understands, we talk about the process. and i've been involved in a lot of high-profile cases where there's been unpopular verdicts. we really need the respect the jury's verdict in this case. we can disagree with whatever verdict they give. we need to respect it because they have a tremendous amount of pressure being put on them to do the right thing in this case. the interesting part about this is that the prosecution and the defense have both staked out very clear pictures of what they think happened. and the truth is that jurors, it's more like a jigsaw puzzle to them in which they are taking pieces from both the prosecution case and the defense case and creating their own composite picture. so it may not be this depraved mind that the prosecution is saying. it may not be this trayvon armed with a block of concrete that
the defense says. but they may try and put this composite picture together. that may take some real time as they try and fit all these tiny jigsaw pieces together to arrive at what they think happened here. >> and how do they do this? are they going through these pages and pages of instructions that we heard judge nelson reading out? do they kind of go through that as a checklist, generally? >> well, they typically do it a couple different ways. one is they can sometimes spend even days saying, let's divide up the evidence and go, let's take a look at the forensic evidence. let's take a look at the 911 calls. let's take a look at the eyewitness evidence. they parse those out and go through those and they debate each of those particular pieces of evidence separately. they can sit there and say let's go through the jury instructions and make sure we know legally what we're supposed to be doing and how to follow those guidelines. sometimes, again, this is --
tends to happen when you have quicker verdicts. they go let's go to the first question. let's see where everybody's at and see if we're in uniformity about that. that can determine it. so there's a number of different paths this jury can take. but more importantly, i think they really do want to take some time. because they realize that this is an important decision. >> certainly. richard gabriel, thank you so much for your insight on that. coming up after the break, you know, one of the things that certainly a where you are consultant like richard can tell you is it really matters what a jury hears last before they deliberated. today it was a very powerful, emotional rebuttal closing argument by the prosecution. we'll talk about that, straight ahead. i'm only in my 60's... i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare,
you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel --
and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. the jury in the george zimmerman trial now behind closed doors, deliberating, considering his fate as we
expect them to do, possibly for some time to come. the last thing they heard before those jury instructions was a rebuttal. a rebuttal closing argument from the attorneys for the state. the prosecution. here's part of it. >> this case is not about race. it's about right and wrong. it's that simple. and let me suggest to you how you know that for sure. ask yourselves, all things being equal, if the roles were reversed and it was 28-year-old george zimmerman walking home in the rain with a hoodie on to protect himself from the rain, walking through that neighborhood, and a 17-year-old driving around in a car who called the police, who had hate
in their heart, hate in their mouth, hate in their actions, and if it was trayvon martin who had shot and killed george zimmerman, what would your verdict be? that's how you know it's not about race. >> i want to bring in trent copeland. he is a defense attorney. trent, if you're sitting there, put yourself in this role. if you're the defense attorney and you're listening to the prosecution give that argument, it's the last thing really of substance besides the jury instructions that the jury hears, are you concerned that it's effective? >> of course i'm concerned. because, look, it's the last thing the jury is going to hear. it's going to resonate with the yur when they go back inhat room. what i'm also hoping is that the jury is going to take back one of the instructions that the court gives them. that is you can't decide this case on emotion and anger. you have to look at the facts of
this case. remember, when it was the defense's turn to present their closing statement, they dissected the evidence almost with the -- the tactical precision of a doctor dissecting an going through a surgeon's heart. they really went through every piece of evidence. by contrast, it was the prosecutor that was asking this jury to use their emotion. to use their passion. to respond in a passionate way. to essentially not like george zimmerman. and that's a problem. and essentially they're asking this jury, the prosecution is, for the jury to simply say, look, ignore the evidence. ignore what you've seen. we know that -- that it was george zimmerman that put all of this in motion. and it was george zimmerman that started the confrontation. ignore the problems that we have in our case. but look at the facts. use your common sense as mothers. as daughters. as people who want to feel for this family. there's no question that's going to resonate with this jury. but i can't say that it really is going to carry the day, nor
it should. >> let's bring in tanya miller. you actually sort of thought this was a really intriguing device. that this was something that may have really worked. >> well, i think what john guy was doing was really interesting here. because what he doesn't want this jury to do is go back there and be divided. right? and the issue of race and the role that race plays in this case or might play in this case is a divisive issue. so he's telling this jury, look, this case isn't about race. this is about what's right and wrong. and i thought that that was very smart for him to do. but look what he also did very subtly. he also said, now, let's not be divided about race. let's make this a question about what's right or wrong. but i want you to just think for a second. if the shoe was on the other foot, would you really struggle the way that the defense is arguing you should struggle about what happened here? would you have the sort of doubts about self-defense that
the defense wants you to have now? i thought it was very effective. >> he gives them in a way a mental device, if race is playing an issue, if, for instance, they identify more with george zimmerman than trayvon martin or the witnesses for george zimmerman than for trayvon martin, that they can maybe perhaps use this device to dismiss that in their judgment. >> exactly. he does that so smoothly and so effectively without making race the divisive issue that we kind of see it playing out as on the outside of the jury room. >> tanya miller, thank you very much. we'll be right back after a quick break. we'll have much more analysis ahead.
now, we have just learned that president obama will call russian president vladimir putin today. this as nsa leaker edward snowden requests a temporary stay in russia. we now have brand-new video of snowden. he's been holed up in a moscow airport for weeks now. you can see him here. he's meeting with human rights activists and attorneys. today is the first time that we have seen him in russia. snowden said today that the united states is persecuting him. he asked for assistance in safe passage to one of the many latin american countries that have offered him asylum. and he's asking for temporary asylum in russia until he can make that trip. >> the president's losing a corner stone of his white house cabinet. janet napolitano, secretary of homeland security, is taking a
job in academia. she'll leave in september to head the university system in california. there's no word yet on her successor. and we now know more about the cockpit recordings from the asiana flight that crashed in san francisco last weekend. it killed two teen girls. injured more than 180 people. two pilots called for the landing to be aborted before the boeing 777 hit a seawall at the end of the runway. the first call came three seconds before the crash. it was followed immediately by another call to abort. cnn has also confirmed that one of the two victims was, indeed, run over by a fire truck in the crash aftermath. we still do not know whether she was alive at the time that she was run over. the fuselage from the cash is now being moved off of the runway. that runway is expected to
reopen this weekend on sunday. up next, as the jury deliberates in the george zimmerman trial, his lawyer, mark o'mara, just revealed what he thought of his client when he met him. the answer may surprise you. we have don lemon and mark nejame joining me next. this day calls you. to fight chronic osteoarthritis pain. to fight chronic low back pain. to take action. to take the next step. today, you will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever
fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. anti-depressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not for children under 18. people taking maois, linezolid or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk. severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing skin or eyes. tell your doctor about all your medicines, including those for migraine and while on cymbalta, call right away if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles or serious allergic skin reactions like blisters, peeling rash, hives, or mouth sores to address possible life-threatening conditions. talk about your alcohol use, liver disease and before you reduce or stop cymbalta. dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. take the next step. talk to your doctor. cymbalta can help.
. george zimmerman's guilt is no doubt at the heart of this trial, but one thing that may no longer be at issue is that zimmerman profiled trayvon martin, as prosecutors contended yesterday. >> what started this? assumptions, incorrect assumptions, on the part of one individual. and, again, that's the last photograph we have of trayvon martin. this innocent 17-year-old kid
was profiled as a criminal. >> profiled as a criminal. let's go now to don lemon and mark nejame in sanford, florida. how important is the jury's determination on this in determining the verdict? >> they couldn't say the words racial profiling in this particular case but i think most people get it. to say that profiling isn't a part of most people's lives, i think that wouldn't be fair to say that because most people profile. but race is certainly front and center in this particular case. and at the beginning when this got national media coverage, it was about racial profiling. and i do have to say that there is -- i have been watching people's reaction to this, mark, watching the people who i work with, people who are in restaurants and bars, what have you, their reaction to the court case. and depending on your particular
lens is what you think about whether trayvon martin was profiled or not, what do you think about george zimmerman and whether or not the prosecution or defense are both making points, it depends on your particular lens as well, doesn't it? >> that's right. >> i think it's very interesting. recently we did a panel, we did a whole thing on the "n" word. i asked african-american men on the panel had you been profiled before, had you been followed and every single african-american man or man of color said yes and every single caucasian man or white man said no, it's never happened to me. >> you said it so eloquently. i got a true education. i was making a comment on facebook or social media and i commented how i thought the evidence was lacking, and i got attacked by many people by being biased and somebody even suggested racism just because i had a legal opinion and i was really dumbfounded by it and a
friend of mine got upset with me, great, smart -- >> black guy? >> black guy. so greg educated me. if we could talk about harassment in the workplace for women, you and i might really be passionate about it but not being women, we can only go so far. and i came to realize how symbolic this case is for so many. and so many people cross culture, primarily african-americans but cross culture, has hung on this this case because it represents the facts there there still is bigotry, there's still prejudice and though things have gotten better, it's not over. many people don't want to let it go because it has become so symbolic. >> what they're arguing about is what happened in the moments when trayvon martin and george zimmerman, what the case is really about legally, what happened in those moments when there was a confrontation, the fight and the gunshot. but what most people cannot
understand is why someone would follow this young man, seemingly innocent young man who was not armed, and most people feel that in some way he was profiled. and so any man of color can understand that. i told you my experiences recently. you can understand -- and maybe this a class thing. when i'm in the airport and someone says, oh, this is not the first class, you have to go this way. i said, no, i happen to be flying first class today. all the white guys are going around me and they won't let me through. i have to tell them and show them i'm going, i have to be in this line. little things like that. even outside of my home where i lived for a long time in georgia, i was the only african-american on my block and seemingly neighborhood. if someone stopped me in front of my very nice home and very nice car and said to me what are you doing here? i would be incredulous. i would say what the hell are
you doing here? i live here, i pay taxes, i belong here, you get out of my face. and i imagine there might be some sort of confrontation between me and that person. >> that's been the misunderstanding that has separated and caused so many people to go on polar extremes. some simply cannot empathize and understand that and it still exists. i've been a defense lawyer for my career. i've fought the fight forever, i know that young african-american men get profiled every single day and whether it's simply being followed in a store, whether it's disparate treatment with law enforcement, whatever it might be, it's not being waited on first in a restaurant when you got there first, it still happens. now, with that said, is this the case that would define the civil rights issues that we still have to address? >> mark o'mara says he understands that probably more than most but he says this is not the case, you should take
george zimmerman out of your cross hairs. >> too many people confuse the two. >> just by talking like this, we are not racist. this is a conversation we should be having. we're back with more coverage after this from sanford. in-dash navigation system in america powered by your smart phone. the chevrolet spark with available bringgo navigation. it doesn't just get you from point "a" to point "b." ♪ it also comes with you... to point "c." from one intelligent mobile device to another. that's american ingenuity to find new roads.
it came as a throng of morsi supporters reassembled in cairo and called for his reinstatement. i'm brianna keilar. thanks for watching. "the lead" starts now. >> we are now on george zimmerman verdict watch. people jake tapper. this is "the lead." the national lead, after three weeks of dramatic and emotional testimony, six female jurors are now deciding the fate of george zimmerman and deciding whether it was murder or self-defense. george zimmerman's attorney made one final pitch to the jury today hammering home the notion of reasonable doubt saying there's too many could have beens to convict. we'll hear from him, the man who orchestrated the closing arguments, attorney mark o'mara. >> and our world lead, catch me if you